Moin,
> > The point of pain from the past was actually the phrasing in 2.6
>
> I don't see the problematic phrasing in the old version of 2.6.
> Can you point it out please?
Ah, my mistake; Actually it was in 5.4.2 of the old text:
"Assignments larger than a /48 (shorter prefix) or additional
assignments exceeding a total of a /48 must be based on address usage
or because different routing requirements exist for additional
assignments."
Which was interpreted to parse to:
AssignmentsÂ
# That are either
[larger than a /48 (shorter prefix)]
# Implicit Exclusive OR
or
[additional assignments exceeding a total of a /48]
# If address usage requires larger network
[must be based on address usage]
# Inclusive OR
or
(
# Different routing requirements exist
[because different routing requirements exist]
# Implicit conditional; i.e., AND it is about
# _additional_ assignments, not a shorter
# prefix.
[for additional assignments.]
)
This means that the _only_ way to justify anything larger than a /48
for a single end-site (even considering 'large', i.e., L2 connected
ones) can only be justified via address usage/addressing needs.
Assuming a /64 per device, this would mean at least (2**16) + 1 devices
(i had a corresponding ticket; See the AP-WG ML archives.)
> > The end-user will, in general, only hold one PI assignment covering
> > their needs at a time.
>
> Perhaps the policy could be reworded to make this clearer.
Yeah, we can see what can be changed textually; Do you have any
suggestions?
With best regards,
Tobias
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options,
please visit:
https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the
email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
